5E Mechanics you'd like to see in Pathfinder RPG


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Everything from Dex damage to move-attack-move, what 5E'isms would you love to see in a possible future Pathfinder 2.0?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are a few topics like this in homebrew.

For the most part, I've accepted that 3.x/PF will break apart if you pull too much from 5e.
For example, the concentration mechanic from 5e is great, but you'd have to rewrite all spells for it to work in PF.
Why do that in PF when you can just play 5e?

A simpler change would be short rest healing though. I don't like healsticks.


Gonna second Petty's bit about short-rest healing. Healing being soley the province of spell-casters has gotten a bit tiring. Also, inspiration, or something similar to it, should be a thing in Pathfinder. Caps on ability scores would be good, maybe a 30 is as high as you can go as a PC and you need magic to get it that last 6/8/10 points of so. You could combine that with doubling the number of ability score bumps you get, so overall people's stats will be a bit higher but not excessively so in any one area. 'Rubber band' initiative is fantastically easy to house-rule in and makes tracking things so much easier. Feats actually being awesome I would love to see. There's a feat in 5E that gives you DR 3/- if you wear heavy armor, makes our party's paladin hella tanky!

Aside from some class specific bits, that's all I can think of for right now. Sure I'll come up with more on Friday when we play again, though.

Sovereign Court

Bounded Accuracy


Funny, I just happen to have a piece of scratch paper on my desk on which I scribbled things I dislike about 5E (for a post on another forum), and Concentration is #2. :)

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Concentration does a lot to rein in spells without just taking them away.


I'd like to see he most essential feats for PF classes "baked" in, instead of being feat taxes. 5e rogues don't have to "pay" for weapon finesse or two-weapon fighting for instance. PF 2.0 classes would have a lot more customization (which seems to be a big deal in these parts) if they didn't spend the first 3-5 feats just getting down the basic features they should have to begin with.

I think concentration serves its purpose, which is to cut down on over-buffing, which in turns speeds up combats. What I do need to do about concentration is find a better a better way to keep track of it with 6 players at the table lol.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't really need to track the player's concentration. It's easy enough for the players to handle it.

For example, bless and hunter's mark, sometimes blur or wall of fire or invisibility. Pretty much everything else is fire and forget.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hex vs. Hold Person is often a quandary for our Warlock.
But I agree, it's the players to track, just like their current HP.

Edit: I also really like that Monks no longer beg for Mage Armor.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I like that there are enough good buff spells that you kind of want two of every kind of spell caster, but there aren't so many that you absolutely need them. There's just enough that you have to make interesting decisions. My big decision is usually between bless and spiritual guardians or spiritual weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Extra Attack

All that splitting up full speed between multiple weapon swings without any penalty.

Liberty's Edge

Extra Attack for Fighters: Yes.
Concentration for Spells: Yes-ish. i am a spellcaster myself, but I understand the need for balance.
Move-attack-Move: Yes.
Short Rest Healing: That should be mandatory.
Rubberband Initiative: What is that?
A Lack of Feat Tax: I agree with everybody who says that "tax feats" should he bundled with the classes.

- - - - -

I do feel like that if we aren't careful though, then we may end up with a Tower of Ductape on our hands, sort of like the Source Engine and earlier versions of Windows.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I think rubberband initiative is that when you Ready an Action, it uses your reaction (I think) to do the readied action, so you do not change your position in the initiative.

It's not a big deal when I GM (I use 3x5 cards, turn delaying and readying characters' cards vertical, and then just move them into their new place when they go, or turn them back horizontal if they don't get to go), but I can see how it can be a lot less annoying if you write everyone's initiative down on a whiteboard or sheet of paper or something.

Liberty's Edge

Readying an Action already does that in Pathfinder, you must be thinking of Delay.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Oh. I thought your initiative changed when you delayed and readied.

Maybe I'm thinking of 3.5...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Seth Dresari wrote:
Readying an Action already does that in Pathfinder, you must be thinking of Delay.
Core Rulebook, Combat chapter, Ready an Action wrote:
Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action.

Liberty's Edge

Okay, now I have to ask... What's this Bounded Accuracy thing that Pan mentioned?


The casting system. The first level wizards actually feel like they're doing something with their slots.

Sovereign Court

Seth Dresari wrote:
Okay, now I have to ask... What's this Bounded Accuracy thing that Pan mentioned?

Instead of having everyone use different base attack bonuses, and gaining random bonuses from feats and class abilities, everybody uses the same "proficiency bonus" progression. All classes start with a +2, and end up with a +6 by level 20 (I think you get it sooner, but that's what it is at the end).

You add your proficiency bonus and the relevant ability score bonus to your attack, whether it is a weapon attack roll (if you are proficient with the weapon), a spell attack, or whatever.

Other than a few rare abilities and magic items (+1 sword, etc), that is the only bonus you add to your attack. Spells may add bonus dice (roll 1d4 and add to your attack roll), and similar, but gone now are the days of bonus counting.

That is bounded accuracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
Seth Dresari wrote:
Okay, now I have to ask... What's this Bounded Accuracy thing that Pan mentioned?

Instead of having everyone use different base attack bonuses, and gaining random bonuses from feats and class abilities, everybody uses the same "proficiency bonus" progression. All classes start with a +2, and end up with a +6 by level 20 (I think you get it sooner, but that's what it is at the end).

You add your proficiency bonus and the relevant ability score bonus to your attack, whether it is a weapon attack roll (if you are proficient with the weapon), a spell attack, or whatever.

Other than a few rare abilities and magic items (+1 sword, etc), that is the only bonus you add to your attack. Spells may add bonus dice (roll 1d4 and add to your attack roll), and similar, but gone now are the days of bonus counting.

That is bounded accuracy.

The effect of Bounded Accuracy is not only streamlining the resolution system, but it also reduces the disparity between high level and low level PCs. Monsters that can be ignored (regardless of number) by high level 3.PF PCs are still threatening (in sufficient numbers) to 5E PCs. Skill tasks that can challenge low level PCs still challenge high level PCs.


A lock that is DC15 at level 1, no longer needs to be DC35 at level 12

Sovereign Court

Indeed. That is another key thing is that you don't go from +1 to +20 in 20 levels. Everyone has equal opportunity to excel in their field, whether it be lobbing magical bolts or shooting a crossbow.

It's also interesting to note that spell DCs are such that most spells requiring a save have a 50/50 chance of succeeding.


Seth Dresari wrote:
Okay, now I have to ask... What's this Bounded Accuracy thing that Pan mentioned?

It effectively limits the maximum bonus you can get with any check to something like +11 from the character, because the primary bonuses are from Proficiency (ranges as Lorathorn says from =2 to +6) and the relevant Stat (which has a maximum of 20, so no more than +5). Those limits to both upper and lower ranges of abilities make for Bounded Accuracy. You can set difficulties that characters with limited ability can reach without making them automatic successes for highly capable characters.

Liberty's Edge

That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It takes some getting used to, but you learn to live without the plethora of magical items and tiny bonuses. Trust me when I say that less is more in 5th edition.


Seth Dresari wrote:
That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.

It wouldn't work imported into PF as is. There's too much else dependent on it.

I don't think it's quite as limited as Bluenose suggests. I believe there are other ways to get a few more points on bonuses, though the advantage/disadvantage mechanism replaces most of them.

But the basic concept of limiting how high you can stack the numbers certainly holds.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Seth Dresari wrote:
That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.

Those things are gone, too. And let's be honest: in a game where the math is a pile of +1s and +2s all adding up to be a level-appropriate total, there's nothing "unique" about those individual pluses. By contrast, in a game where the math is your stat mod plus a binary yes/no for adding your proficiency bonus, the small handful of things that actually further modify the math are far more "unique" than any given brick in Pathfinder's mathwall.

In 5E, the fact that the rogue can double his proficiency bonus on a couple of skills is actually special. In 5E, the fact that some bards can add half their proficiency bonus to every skill they're not already proficient in is actually meaningful. In 5E, bless can be your math-changer for the whole game, instead of fading into insignificance around 4th level or so.

The pluses you accrue in Pathfinder aren't unique. The pluses in 5E are.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I really like the bounded accuracy. But when I don't cast bless I feel like I'm letting the team down. Especially against enemy spellcasters and poisoners and other special ability users.

Liberty's Edge

I know that over-buffing can be a problem, which is one reason that concentration exists, but more personal spells need to effect your allies; for instance, Mage Armor and Entropic Shield would both have a 2d6-minute/CL duration (making MA last shorter and ES last longer) and would also effect all allies within a certain radius (20 feet + 10/CL)?

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Seth Dresari wrote:
That Bounded Accuracy thing sounds cool, but it also takes the uniqueness out of certain items, traits and/or feats that provide bonuses to certain skills, including but not limited to circumstance bonuses.

Those things are gone, too. And let's be honest: in a game where the math is a pile of +1s and +2s all adding up to be a level-appropriate total, there's nothing "unique" about those individual pluses. By contrast, in a game where the math is your stat mod plus a binary yes/no for adding your proficiency bonus, the small handful of things that actually further modify the math are far more "unique" than any given brick in Pathfinder's mathwall.

In 5E, the fact that the rogue can double his proficiency bonus on a couple of skills is actually special. In 5E, the fact that some bards can add half their proficiency bonus to every skill they're not already proficient in is actually meaningful. In 5E, bless can be your math-changer for the whole game, instead of fading into insignificance around 4th level or so.

The pluses you accrue in Pathfinder aren't unique. The pluses in 5E are.

Exactly my thoughts. I love the simpler math instead of the "I have a +8bab, +4 from strength, +2 for flank, +2 from weapon, +2 from spell, and...damn, missed..." next round: "crap, I missed last round because I forgot about my X bonus or I would've hit last round".

5E makes any bonus into something special and makes magic items mean something again instead of just a bonus that needs to be worked up level appropriately just to stay viable in the game.

That said there isn't really anything I would shunt over from 5E to PRPG. They are 2 different beasts that behave totally differently. Change one minor thing in PRPG and you may find you need to revamp entire areas of the system that are effected.
I liked Pathfinder but I love 5E and since I switched I really don't miss it. Prep is a breeze, combat is fast and easy to follow, adding in homebrew classes, races, backgrounds, etc.. are simple to do.
Pathfinder to me is it's own thing, as is 5E. Trying to shoehorn elements of one into the other is not a great idea IMO. Just play whichever one suits your group better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fake Healer wrote:
I love the simpler math instead of the "I have a +8bab, +4 from strength, +2 for flank, +2 from weapon, +2 from spell, and...damn, missed..." next round: "crap, I missed last round because I forgot about my X bonus or I would've hit last round".

I think you're overstating things a bit here. Do you really calculate your bonus to hit from the ground up every time you roll the dice? Smart players would record their attack bonus with all "permanent" bonuses baked in on the character sheet, and add situational mods as needed. I agree that there are "shit, I forgot my flanking bonus" instances, but there should never be "shit, I forgot to add my Strength bonus".

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I've seen players at our table calculate BAB + Strength/Dexterity + magic weapon + Weapon Focus every round, even though it's already figured out on their character sheet. They're just double-checking in case they missed something, which if you missed by 1 or 2, can be significant.

Adding PBS, flanking, bless, bardic music, haste, rage, higher ground, etc. bonuses, and keeping track of penalties from Power Attack, being fatigued, shaken, and/or sickened, bane, slow, etc., can be a bit much. Especially in a large party with lots of distractions.

Sovereign Court

Status effects are huge. And feats like PBS start to become so ingrained that you just use them no matter the range. I know that I used to write down my PBS and non PBS scores, but not everyone did.

Then you had things like bane, ranger favored enemy, etc.

AND THEN you had fights with monsters where their attack bonuses were so high that they would only miss on a 1-2, and it felt like you were wasting your time bothering with armor class at all. You don't really see that in 5th edition.

Paizo Employee

The only thing I lift is trading feats in for attributes (up to 20). I also allow people to trade in "choose one" class features, like rogue talents.

Cheers!
Landon


It is not considered true 5E, but maneuvers from the playtest for martial classes to replace feat chains. Then feats could be neutral choices for all classes. I would also port over rituals for all classes, but I would probably stick with straight vancian system to keep spells simple.

The only other thing is attacks and save based effects for all classes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "arcanist-style" spell preparation that many classes get in 5th Edition is really nice. That, and added power for using spells in higher spell slots, and character level-based Save DCs are all really nice.

Liberty's Edge

Indeed. We should probably make a detailed document for integrating all of these things into PF, that way the overall odds of breaking something are lower.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I finally buckled and bought 5e, after a quick read through there was quite a bit that I ported to my Pulpfinder Mummy's Mask game E7 game. Simplifying skills into proficiency, and having a more consolidated skill list.

I'm really intrigued with 5e Class design, and might try my hand at adapting some Pathfinder classes into 5e. A 5e Alchemist could be a fun design challenge. At would a 5e Kineticist, considering the Warlock ended up with pseudo spellcasting rather than the magic blast from 3.5 edition D&D.

But I'll leave that for a separate thread.

I will say: The length 5e went, to remove so many floating bonuses from the game so that you have to really pick and choose what boosts, buffs to apply is very appealing.

5e Really takes that level 1-10 power level and spreads it over 20 levels like butter, and that I don't like their design philosophy for shape shifting (don't like stat replacement) and summoned creatures.

I'd need to get more in depth to really make some decisions as to what I want to bring over.

Sovereign Court

I'm curious to see what you do with it. I've been very pleased with 5E so far, and excited about all the possibilities and fan work that has been done.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'm really intrigued with 5e Class design, and might try my hand at adapting some Pathfinder classes into 5e. A 5e Alchemist could be a fun design challenge. At would a 5e Kineticist, considering the Warlock ended up with pseudo spellcasting rather than the magic blast from 3.5 edition D&D.

Somebody already converted the Oracle and the Alchemist. They're in this very subforum, in fact.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Seth Dresari wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'm really intrigued with 5e Class design, and might try my hand at adapting some Pathfinder classes into 5e. A 5e Alchemist could be a fun design challenge. At would a 5e Kineticist, considering the Warlock ended up with pseudo spellcasting rather than the magic blast from 3.5 edition D&D.
Somebody already converted the Oracle and the Alchemist. They're in this very subforum, in fact.

That was me! :-D

The warlock still gets eldritch blast as a cantrip. There are also some Warlock Invocations that affect it: One adds your Charisma modifier to your eldritch blast damage, the other pushes them back 10 feet.

Since the eldritch blast cantrip creates additional blasts at levels 5, 11, and 17, damage output goes from around 1d10+3 to 2d10+8 to 3d10+15 to 4d10+20. Not too shabby.

And since they are separate blasts at higher levels, you can target multiple targets. At 11th level, only the fighter and warlock get 3 attacks per round without haste or two-weapon fighting or other magic.


I think bounded accuracy and concentration spells are the reason I now play 5e over most other fantasy RPGs, but it is 5e's approach to magic items that I really love.

The 5e approach does a lot to make Magic Items awesome again.

Limiting PCs to three significant magic items, but at the same time making magic weapons bonus on top of the default assumptions, means that when I find a magic sword at 3rd level, I can still be rocking it at level 20 and it will still be awesome!


Bounded accuracy can be mimicked using the automatic bonus rules from Pathfinder Unchained - it does feel very game-y though.

My favorite thing in 5e is the removal of almost all alignment mechanics, the dedication to flavorful abilities that have utility (thieves' cant for example, backgrounds as another), and the spellcasting engine. Between the removal of caster levels, the removal of metamagic (aside from sorcerer where it works well), the spells themselves, and cantrips as primary attacks the only bad thing is formatting.

I did an experiment with replacing all Pathfinder spellcasting with 5e's (being very generous with available spells) and it works really well - but it is all or nothing. I would do that over Spheres of Power because I still like Vancian casting and I think 5e does it right.


houser2112 wrote:
Lorathorn wrote:
Seth Dresari wrote:
Okay, now I have to ask... What's this Bounded Accuracy thing that Pan mentioned?

Instead of having everyone use different base attack bonuses, and gaining random bonuses from feats and class abilities, everybody uses the same "proficiency bonus" progression. All classes start with a +2, and end up with a +6 by level 20 (I think you get it sooner, but that's what it is at the end).

You add your proficiency bonus and the relevant ability score bonus to your attack, whether it is a weapon attack roll (if you are proficient with the weapon), a spell attack, or whatever.

Other than a few rare abilities and magic items (+1 sword, etc), that is the only bonus you add to your attack. Spells may add bonus dice (roll 1d4 and add to your attack roll), and similar, but gone now are the days of bonus counting.

That is bounded accuracy.

The effect of Bounded Accuracy is not only streamlining the resolution system, but it also reduces the disparity between high level and low level PCs. Monsters that can be ignored (regardless of number) by high level 3.PF PCs are still threatening (in sufficient numbers) to 5E PCs. Skill tasks that can challenge low level PCs still challenge high level PCs.

AND...for the added bonus...your party of 12th level characters can kill DEITIES!!! You could kill Tiamat simply looking at her wrong because the difference between her and her AC and you and your guys in how hard it is to hit is about a +3.

And that's why I hate bounded accuracy.

Paizo puts that in PF as a core item...I'm outta here forever. I think many people who play PF as opposed to 5e do so because they LIKE that a Fighter has a +20 to hit compared to a Wizard having a +10 to hit...

They LIKE that a Fighter can mow through a group of 1e level mooks and never have to fear about getting hurt unless a 20 is rolled.

They LIKE seeing that 1st level characters are no match for a 20th level character, even if that character is a 4th tier character.

It may be a fine mechanic for 5e, but I NEVER want to see it in my PF.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

GreyWolfLord wrote:
AND...for the added bonus...your party of 12th level characters can kill DEITIES!!! You could kill Tiamat simply looking at her wrong because the difference between her and her AC and you and your guys in how hard it is to hit is about a +3.

The difference between your AC and a deity's AC is only +3, therefore it's easy to kill said deity?

Help me understand why a post like this deserves to be taken seriously. Or was it a joke and I missed the sarcasm or something?


Tiamat is basically immune to 12th level characters, I'm not sure where you think they would be able to defeat Tiamat without an army of 12th level characters in a field rolling lucky rolls. Tiamat has a DC26 Wisdom save to remain within 240ft, and 2 breath weapons a turn - an army would be defeated. Much higher level PCs still have to get lucky but have a shot since their magic can actually affect Tiamat.

And even if Tiamat reached 0 HP Tiamat isn't dead, it just goes back to its domain. Just... Leave your white room crafting to the Terrasque which can be rules lawyered into having a weakness.

Also, you have bounded accuracy wrong. It just limits the bonuses available so there is a ceiling for the rolls and it allows for truly impossible DCs even with planning. You can have BAB and bounded accuracy of you got rid of the massive glut of circumstantial bonuses and magic and whatever else. 5e chose to narrow the boundary to make games more dangerous and like classic D&D. It doesn't mean a level 10 character has a chance of losing to a CR1/4 creature, it means properly budgeting your encounter XP is a more accurate challenge to the party. It's fine that you like that, but I don't like fantasy superhero stories.

The reason bounded accuracy is good is that Pathfinder PCs can regularly have encounters at CR+3 and with system mastery not have it challenge them. Pathfinder makes groups of enemies far weaker than a single higher CR enemy. It
Encourages one encounter days to maximum bonuses. It increases the reliance on magic stat boosting items. It means the bestiary is a roller coaster ride of what CR represents. Bounded accuracy cleans those issues up.


Jiggy wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
AND...for the added bonus...your party of 12th level characters can kill DEITIES!!! You could kill Tiamat simply looking at her wrong because the difference between her and her AC and you and your guys in how hard it is to hit is about a +3.

The difference between your AC and a deity's AC is only +3, therefore it's easy to kill said deity?

Help me understand why a post like this deserves to be taken seriously. Or was it a joke and I missed the sarcasm or something?

Characters can in theory easily have up to a +17 to hit (Bless and a +3 weapon at 20th level).

20th level Creatures are made to be able to be hit by those with a +6 proficiency bonus. If you say that's up to +11 IF they take all the stat bonuses...a typical creature may have an AC of around 20.

This gives someone a 9 or better to hit (which stays around that 50% range).

This is by intention.

For your level range, it seems they want you to have around a 50% chance of hitting.

That means a deity which is around a 30th level CR will have around 3 AC points higher, and 3 points higher in their bonus to hit (and that's actually reflected in their tables of a +9 at 30th instead of a +6).

An 11th level group will only have 2 less points to hit...so around a +9 bonus with proficiency bonus and stat bonus. Now with Bless, and a +2 weapon (we'll not even give them a +3 weapon) they can have up to +15 to hit. This means they need an 8 or higher to hit that deity (unheard of really for 11th level characters in ANY EDITION of D&D previously in regards to any creature), and with the damage output vs. how much their AC is...reasonable enough for 11th level characters to take down a deity. (upper AC at that point is actually reachable to the 30s as well...if min/max'd).

So...tongue in cheek to a degree, but also, yes...it's semi-serious as the biggest problem I have with the small proficieny bonus is that it means small threats remain threats no matter how high a level is. These threats remain threats for your characters, even up to 20th level. By the same regards, your characters are ALSO threats from the lowest level to the highest no matter HOW large the foe is. I disagree with this approach in general for gameplay where you are supposed to be heroes where you replicate being able to be like Hercules, or Jason, or Ulysses where the lower level guys are mere bloodsplatters on your blade if they come against you.

For games where you want less heroic and more dangerous...sure, it can work well...

But I want heroic in my PF...not some squig that's going to have their career ended on the end of a lowly goblin spear at 20th level.

So, keep it with your 5e, but keep it out of my PF.


hiiamtom wrote:

Tiamat is basically immune to 12th level characters, I'm not sure where you think they would be able to defeat Tiamat without an army of 12th level characters in a field rolling lucky rolls. Tiamat has a DC26 Wisdom save to remain within 240ft, and 2 breath weapons a turn - an army would be defeated. Much higher level PCs still have to get lucky but have a shot since their magic can actually affect Tiamat.

And even if Tiamat reached 0 HP Tiamat isn't dead, it just goes back to its domain. Just... Leave your white room crafting to the Terrasque which can be rules lawyered into having a weakness.

Also, you have bounded accuracy wrong. It just limits the bonuses available so there is a ceiling for the rolls and it allows for truly impossible DCs even with planning. You can have BAB and bounded accuracy of you got rid of the massive glut of circumstantial bonuses and magic and whatever else. 5e chose to narrow the boundary to make games more dangerous and like classic D&D. It doesn't mean a level 10 character has a chance of losing to a CR1/4 creature, it means properly budgeting your encounter XP is a more accurate challenge to the party. It's fine that you like that, but I don't like fantasy superhero stories.

The reason bounded accuracy is good is that Pathfinder PCs can regularly have encounters at CR+3 and with system mastery not have it challenge them. Pathfinder makes groups of enemies far weaker than a single higher CR enemy. It
Encourages one encounter days to maximum bonuses. It increases the reliance on magic stat boosting items. It means the bestiary is a roller coaster ride of what CR represents. Bounded accuracy cleans those issues up.

I think you guys miss the point why MANY play Pathfinder. They play it for the fun at low level, but as their characters gain levels...they want to see reasonable gains. a +1 to their proficiency bonus every 4 levels is NOT pathfinder gains in power in any way or sense of the word as it relates to Pathfinder.

Bounded accuracy is BAD for most games, as it is an ARTIFICIAL limitation.

I understand the point of keeping low level guys as threats constantly. Even when you are 20th level...in 5e you can die to the lowest and weakest kobold.

In fact, the odds are against you if you get attacked enough times by low level kobolds.

However, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

The same applies to Deities...even Tiamat. Eventually, an 11th level character will take her down...and at 11th level you have even odds of hitting her if you are min/max'd as you would a normal character at 20th (your odds may actually even be better).

What's more, is death is no longer a barrier...you die...you get raised. It's just a matter of persistence at that point rather than anything Tiamat can do. (The hard part is actually getting to her...killing if you find a way to get to her repeatedly is actually the easy part).

It's a strength and a weakness of the system that low level mooks can always be a threat to higher level characters...AND monsters. It works BOTH ways.

It may be fine for 5e, but that's not what Pathfinder is about. I WANT my fighter to be able to show that they are literally impervious to 1st level characters...that my wizard is basically a walking doom if you threaten them...and that my rogue is competent to take down just about any low level characters or NPCs rather than being able to be taken down by them.

I'm happy to let people do that with 5e...and if they want that...they can PLAY 5e...but let's not destroy our Pathfinder simply because you want to make everyone play it your way.

Sovereign Court

Well...

First off, the design principal between letting everyone have an equal chance to hit isn't outrageous. It just means that everyone is equally efficacious in combat without needing something like touch attacks to ensure that mages can hit, and without relying too heavily on "save for half" effects.

There is absolutely no reason that the wizard should have a harder time to hit, any more than a ranged archer build should, or a rogue, or a cleric.

The difference is that for some (not all) classes, the focus is on having one stat effect the combat capability of your character rather than having a MAD character for no good reason (though bards and clerics still kind of suffer from this).

[edit: I forgot that the discussion is due to Tiamat HAVING stats. I wish I had the book with her stats, but the rest of my points still stand...]

But more to the real point; what we're talking about isn't ruining Pathfinder with a scaling bonus. Pathfinder is already too mechanical to be derailed by bounded accuracy. There is so much inherent into the game that it wouldn't help you if you were more accurate if you weren't also better in 5 other different areas, i.e. negating damage reduction, increasing damage output, maximizing your own survivability, having a good healing engine, and being able to negate or mitigate status ailments.

And also, no one is going to change Pathfinder... this is all kind of... chat about home games.


I must have missed the point about it being about home games.

I don't care what people do in their home games.

I just care if they want to input it into the normal Pathfinder rules in general for everyone.

1 to 50 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 5E Mechanics you'd like to see in Pathfinder RPG All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.